OSCI 8611:
Macro Organizational Science I
Spring 2012
COLV 3131
Wednesdays, 2:00-4:45 p.m.
Instructor: Cliff Scott Phone: 704/687.0778 (office)/ 704.779.6160 (cell)
Office: Colvard 5009 Email:
Office Hours: Tuesday/Thursday, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. and by appointment
Goals
Organizational science is an inter- and multi-disciplinary field consisting of a complex array of theoretical and methodological paradigms that only partially overlap. This diversity of perspectives is perhaps its greatest asset, but fragmentation can present challenges for students attempting to develop programmatic research skills in a doctoral program like ours. This course is intended to provide a broad overview of selected organization-level topics and issues as they are understood across the organizational sciences.
By the end of this course, committed students should walk away with:
· more questions than answers about the construction of organizational theories and practices;
· a growing vocabulary for talking about key issues and concerns among practitioners and scholars of organizing;
· an enhanced ability to recognize tensions between theory and practice and a value for managing but not eliminating them;
· an expanded appreciation for similarities and differences across disciplines and paradigms;
· a more skilled capacity to engage in constructive, creative intellectual discussion.
Format
Our class will feature a combination of seminar-style discussion, group activities, and occasionally a brief lecture. As a graduate course, the success of this format depends as much—probably more—on the performance of the students as it does the instructor. You will receive questions to focus your reading in advance of each class session. The responsibility for facilitating will be shared by me and the students, but as a graduate course, particularly a doctoral seminar, students must bear most of this burden. Our meetings should be provocative, challenging, collegial, and reflect a balanced concern for both theory and practice. We should also enjoy getting to know one another.
Course Requirements
Major paper (35%): Submit a major research proposal, grant proposal, empirical study or concept paper. In this project, you demonstrate an advanced understanding of a topic of interest to you by identifying a practical and/or theoretical problem needing further research attention, synthesizing what is and is not known about it, and proposing or carrying out research that addresses the gaps you identified. Your paper will be evaluated in terms of content, structure, style (grammar, APA style) general persuasiveness and the extent to which it reflects (via summary, at least) what multiple perspectives have to say about your topic. Due 4/29. E-mail it to me by 5:00 that day, and bring me a hard copy of the paper by Monday.
Theoretical Memos (15%): Over the course of the semester, students will submit three short papers (3-5 double spaced pages) that critique, develop, and/or analyze a theme that cuts across three or more readings. These papers are not summaries of the readings. Rather, they are well constructed arguments that take a specific stand on concepts, ideas, and theories you find interesting, compelling, frustrating, or valuable. Better yet, describe what you find missing from the discussion and explain why its absence is problematic. This work will be evaluated in terms of your ability to articulate a unique argument (versus echoing what one or more of the readings have said) in the introduction and support it with conceptual and/or empirical evidence (via citations) in a compelling, organized fashion in the body. These papers will be assessed for both content and style (APA style, grammar, etc.).
Discussion Leading (20%): Each student will facilitate 45-60 minutes of class during each of two class sessions. Students should consult with me at least two weeks in advance of the assigned session to discuss their general facilitation plan (e.g., what readings they intend to cover, what activities or discussion procedures they intend employ in their facilitation). The period you facilitate should include mostly discussion and activity leading, but some brief lecturing (10-15 minutes) may be necessary. Students must also distribute to the class via e-mail 5-10 discussion questions their peers should use to guide their reading. If more than one student is scheduled to facilitate a given class session, these individuals should divide the material evenly for the purpose of writing these 7-10 questions in total. Discussion questions should be sent to me and your peers no later than noon on the Monday prior to the Thursday you facilitate. Discussion leading will be evaluated for both content (i.e., depth of discussion, nuance, and accuracy) and style (i.e., vocal delivery, quality of facilitation, presentation materials).
Pop Quizzes (20%): Students will be quizzed over the readings at the beginning of class on several occasions throughout the semester. Quizzes may consist of one or more of the following types of items: multiple choice, short answer and essay.
Class Participation (10%): This portion of your grade is determined by the instructor’s subjective judgment of the quality of your involvement in the class. This portion of your grade is to reward demonstrated knowledge of course readings, value added to class discussion, and competent, respectful classroom leadership.
Final grades will be assigned following a standard scale: (A = 90%; B =80%; C =70%; U< 70). Students must demonstrate competence to receive a B grade and excellence to receive an A grade.
Notes, Obligatory Warnings and Administrivia
· We may not cover all of the readings comprehensively during each class session. This is not intended to suggest anything about the importance of the readings in general or particular readings specifically. Readings are a key part of the educational experience. Some value is realized whether or not they are not discussed.
· In case of absence you will be responsible for getting notes from your peers. In graduate-level courses, absences are exceptionally rare.
· Arrive to class on time and prepared with notes, questions, and comments on all the readings in hand.
· If you are having any problems at all, PLEASE let me know. Let’s talk about it. Nothing is gained (individually or collectively) when students are less than honest about their comfort with course material, assignments, or class discussion.
· You are bound by the Code of Student Academic Integrity. The following information from the current UNC Charlotte catalog is provided for your information. “The UNC Charlotte Code of Student Academic Integrity governs the responsibility of students to maintain integrity in academic work, define violations of the standards, describes procedures for handling alleged violations of the standards, and lists applicable penalties. The following conduct is prohibited in that Code:
o Cheating. Intentionally using or attempting to use unauthorized material, information, notes, study aids, or other devices in any academic exercise. This definition includes unauthorized communication of information during an academic exercise.
o Fabrication and Falsification. Intentional and unauthorized alteration or invention of any information or citation in an academic exercise. Falsification is a matter of altering information while fabrication is a matter of inventing or counterfeiting information for use in any academic exercise.
o Multiple Submission. The submission of substantial portions of the same academic work (including oral reports) for credit more than once without prior authorization.
o Plagiarism. Intentionally or knowingly presenting the work of another as ones own (i.e. without proper acknowledgment of the source). The sole exception to the requirement of acknowledging sources is when the ideas, information, etc. are common knowledge.
o Abuse of Academic Materials. Intentionally or knowingly destroying, stealing, or making inaccessible library or other academic resource materials.
o Complicity in Academic Dishonesty. Intentionally or knowingly helping or attempting to help another commit an act of academic dishonesty.
Tentative Course Schedule
Date / Topic(s) / Required Reading1/11 / Introduction to the Course / Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organizational science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7, 191-207.
Fabian, F. (2000). Keeping the tension: Pressures to keep the controversy in the management discipline. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 350.
Starbuck, W. H. (2003). Shouldn't organization theory emerge from adolescence? Organization, 10(3), 439-452.
1/18 / Job Satisfaction and Related Attitudes / Harrison, D. A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P.L. (2006). How important are
job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96-107.
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional
approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56 77.
Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition,
and job attitudes: The effects of positive mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 55-62.
Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J., Shanock, L., Scott, C. W., & Shuffler, M.
(2010). Employee satisfaction with meetings: A contemporary facet of job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 49, 149-172.
1/25 / Groups, teams and decision making. / Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-
managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437.
Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and
detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40, 256-282.
O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Martocchio, J.J., & Frink, D.D. (1994). A review of
the influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 1285-1301.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work
group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and
research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.
2/1 / Leadership / Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on
the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.
Fairhurst, G. T. (1993). The leader-member exchange patterns of women
leaders in industry: A discourse analysis. Communication
Monographs, 60(4), 321-351.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of
transformational leadership on follower development and
performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal,
45, 735-744.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the
charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their
consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96-112.
2/8 / Introduction to Metatheory / Now that we’ve read some studies examining phenomena at individual, group and organizational levels of analysis, let’s cover some basic, introductory metatheory.
Chapters 3-6 of Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspectives, Processes and contexts. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Chapter 3: Philosophical foundations: What is theory?
Chapter 4: Positivist (postpositive) perspectives on theory development
Chapter 5: Interpretive perspectives on theory development
Chapter 6: Critical perspectives on theory development
2/15 / Identity / Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the
organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby,
J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal
threat or safety for African-Americans in main stream institutions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 615-630.
Buzzanell, P. M. (1995). Reframing the glass ceiling as a socially
constructed process: Implications for understanding and change.
Communication Monographs, 62, 327-354.
Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing
identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 45, 456-493.
2/22 / Emotion / Ashforth, B.E., & Humphrey, R.H. 1995. Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations, 48, 97-125.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R.I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of Management Review, 12, 23-37.
Tracy, S. J. (2000). Becoming a character for commerce: Emotion labor, self subordination and discursive construction of identity in a total institution. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 90-128.
Martin, J., Knopoff, K., & Beckman, C. 1998. An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional labor: Bounded emotionality at The Body Shop. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 429-469.
2/29 / Stress / Maslach, C., & Leiter, M.P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and
engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 498-512.
Thomas, L.T., & Ganster, D.C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work
variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6-15.
Kreiner, G., Hollensbe, E., & Sheep, M.L. (in press). Do I build a bridge
or secure the border? Negotiating the work-home interface via
boundary work tactics. Academy of Management Journal.
Rothbard, N.P., Phillips, K.W., & Dumas, T.L. (2005). Managing Multiple
Roles: Work-Family Policies and Individuals’ Desires for
Segmentation. Organization Science, 16, 243-258.
3/14 / Ambiguity, Sense-making and High Reliability Organizing / Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628-652.
Baran, B. E., & Scott, C. W. (2010). Organizing ambiguity: A grounded
theory of leadership and sensemaking within dangerous
environments. Military Psychology, 22(S1), S42-S69.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the
process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
Eisenberg, E. (1990), Jamming: Transcendence through organizing.
Communication Research, 17, 139-164.
3/21 / Change / Weick, K. E. and Quinn, R. E. 1999 “Organizational development and change” Annual Review of Psychology 50 361-386.
Hage, J.T. 1999 “Organizational innovation and organizational change.” Annual Review of Sociology 25”597-622.
Kuhn, T., & Corman, S. R. (2003). The emergence of homogeneity and heterogeneity in knowledge structures during a planned organizational change. Communication Monographs, 70,198-229.
Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as
discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the
context of information technology implementation. Academy of
Management Journal, 44, 755-778.
3/28 / Socialization / Clair, R. P. (1996). The political nature of the colloquialism, ‘A real job’:
Communication Monographs, 63, 249-267.
Myers, K., & Oetzel, J. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of organizational
assimilation: Creating and validating a communication measure.
Communication Quarterly, 51, 436- 455.
Ashforth, B. E. & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149-178.